Will we ever have full integration?

[calahans]

I'm amazed by the number of firms which employ vast numbers of people who have jobs which basically involve taking information printed from system A, inputting it into an excel spreadsheet, printing of the results of some calculations and input into another client/server application.<br>
<br>
Do people think that we will get true integration in view of all the disparate off the shelf packages and bespoke IT solutions existing side by side. Will we ever free these people from what must be a mind melting job??<br>
<br>
My opinion is that it is about 50 years away, at least. What do others think? What language/technologies do people see as bridging systems? Obiously XML is going to be huge. What about messaging systems like MSMQ and MQSeries?

 

[MikeLacey]

The thing is - we have the technology to integrate everything now - and it's not being done. Or rather it is - more and more - it's just that the more we do the more integration people want. I doubt we'll ever get to the point where systems are integrated to the point where little ad-hoc links are a thing of the past, they might get easier - I guess.<br>
<br>
-ml<br>
<p>Mike Lacey<br><a href=mailto:Mike_Lacey@Cargill.Com>Mike_Lacey@Cargill.Com</a><br><a href=

http://www.cargill.com/>

Cargill's Corporate Web Site</a><br>

 

[johnk]

One of my main interests is in encapsulated and reusable modules. We are now seeing more practical ways to integrate important functions by using the standard class interfaces of methods and properties.<br>
<br>
One good example: We create a bill of materials for a cabinet manufacturer for each item ordered. Our app produces what we call a cut list for the CNC machines which shape the parts. Another module our customer acquired elsewhere takes the cut list and lays out the patterns on the raw material, then creates the code which drives the CNC machines. All OOP, all developed independently, all smoothly integrated.<br>
<br>
There will never be a master plan which will cover in advance all that will need to be developed as time passes. Therefore, realistic full integration must be built on modules which can be &quot;slipped&quot; in and out of the integrated system as requirements change. When we get to that point, full integration can be the norm.<br>
<br>
We're workin' on it.<br>
<br>

 

[MikeLacey]

&lt;grin&gt; I'll be happy for you to prove me wrong John - I <b>would</b> still suggest that most stuff (mine - for instance) won't be as well done as yours.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<p>Mike Lacey<br><a href=mailto:Mike_Lacey@Cargill.Com>Mike_Lacey@Cargill.Com</a><br><a href=

http://www.cargill.com/>

Cargill's Corporate Web Site</a><br>

 

[JimHorton]

For any of this to work, there needs to be some central (not government) body to sanction some set of standards. And it has to be a single, universally (within the IT industry) agreed-upon body. If not, we will continue to fight with competing standards and sniping ceo's. <br>
<br>
Java and Browsers are the obvious example here. Java was supposed to be the magic bullet that pulled everything together so that we could have true 'write once, run anywhere' coding. I have *never* seen a java app or applet that I could take to even 5 machines in a row at my office, without it crashing on at least 1--it's either the machine is using MS java VM, and not Pure Sun Java, or the machine doesn't have java 1.1 (or 1.2, 2.0,3.0--that'll never end), or it has an old version of netscape or IE, or the classpath is wrong, or some other setting. Sure, these are easier to remedy than this situation with a C-app: 'oh, this app is compiled for Solaris, and you have NT--let me re-run the C-compiler and select the NT option', but to me, it's quite the same in a practical sense if a user can't just take the app and run it--period.<br>
<br>
Before that happens, it is, for most, too risky to invest years of development into a framework you hope will become a defacto standard, or based on something that is already a standard, that may be knocked off it's perch by the vageries of the market. When the industry as a whole can agree on a set of standards we can move towards true full-integration.<br>
--Jim

 

[calahans]

Jim makes a good point. I also think that before we go to the technology level we need to get our stategic plan and from that map what information we require and then we can go a implement a solution which is an enterprise wide one. <br>
<br>
This is <b><i>so</b></i> much easier said than done. Up until recently, only in the largest companies was their much thought as to the big picture. The IT departments would not really get involved in the accounts department new package (which can often be the fulcrum of a company data). Systems have grown up in an uncontrolled manner. Its harder and harder to integrate these.<br>
<br>
I think JohnK is going the right way, but its a long road.......

 

[Karl Blessing]

Intergration is already being done on a smaller level, for example, i can write code in any of the Visual studio tools, and intergrate it into another, and i'm already looking into using XML thru VC++ & ASP, i already have VC++ + VB + ASP + IIS interacting. to a degree, but considering that the new integral technology isnt exactly an opensource, it'll probally be forever til we can have a true intergration, we got a pretty good one going tho, just need to get more people to actually use it. <p>Karl<br><a href=mailto:kb244@bellsouth.net>kb244@bellsouth.net</a><br><a href=

http://kb244.8m.com>

</a><br>Experienced in , or have messed with : VC++, Borland C++ Builder, VB-Dos, VB1 thru VB6, Delphi 3 pro, Borland C++ 3(DOS), Borland C++ 4.5, HTML, ASP(somewhat), QBasic(hehe, yea it was 4.5 too, least i didnt start with COBOL)

 

[johnk]

My interest in integrated systems is in enterprise level sets of applications for smaller manufacturers and distributors.<br>
<br>
Karl is right, and emphasizes some points made in earlier posts. We have some good technology now, and it's getting better right along. Mike Lacy hits it on the head when he points out that we don't go very far in using available technology to acheive integrated information systems.<br>
<br>
In addition to learning and using the newer technologys, to me the key is flexible database and application design. Only then will it be practical to extend and join separate applications routinely.<br>
<br>
In our experience, the learning of distributed architecture technology (classes, DCOM, etc.) took some real time & effort, but once achieved the actual implementations are easier than with older architectures. Now, if we could only learn to create really good multi-use designs... For instance, our Customer object(s) should be able to support Marketing, Order Processing, Billing, Accounts Receivable, Contact Management, etc. All to the level that they could be used without modification - or, if mods are necessary, they would not disturb other users. (Microsoft never got the hang of this one either). We are making good progress, but for us this new design process was not intuitive or easy to learn.<br>
<br>
But this is where professional design and programming is headed. And for me it is very much worth the effort and hassle. <p>John Kisner<br><a href=mailto:jlkisner@jlkisner.com>jlkisner@jlkisner.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>

 

[Karl Blessing]

Stuff like ADO really helps too, intergrates nearly every kinda ODBC supported database type, can be anywhere from an access database, to a SQL Server, corse that was years ago when they got ODBC and OLE going, to make everything more and more universal. Least we arnt sitting around trying to write code for a different type of database, my office is gona change my access97 Database over to SQL Server soon, so what does that mean to me, almost nothing, cuz the ADO code stays the same, the DSN interaction only needs to change source, and the only thing different i do, is open up a different editor to monitor my data. Thats how far it's come from redesigning the whole thing whenever a copany decides to change format. <p>Karl<br><a href=mailto:kb244@bellsouth.net>kb244@bellsouth.net</a><br><a href=

http://kb244.8m.com>

</a><br>Experienced in , or have messed with : VC++, Borland C++ Builder, VB-Dos, VB1 thru VB6, Delphi 3 pro, Borland C++ 3(DOS), Borland C++ 4.5, HTML, ASP(somewhat), QBasic(hehe, yea it was 4.5 too, least i didnt start with COBOL)